Partly allowed

Sam @ Samkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/3336/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner challenged conviction and modified sentence for offence under IPC 324. Court confirmed conviction but increased fine from rupees 3,000 to 5,000, granting time for payment instead of immediate imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed in part; conviction confirmed but fine increased to Rs. 5,000; accused granted three weeks to remit fine.

Sam @ Samkutty Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/28TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3336 of 2010 ( )

¶6

--------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 38/2007 of 1^st ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 08-10-2010

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 303/2002 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR DATED 30-12-2006

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

¶9

SAM ALIAS SAMKUTTY, S/O. NIAN, KARIPPAKUNNU DESOM, PODIMANNIL HOUSE, PIPE LINE ROAD.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶11

SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶12

SRI.V.C.SARATH

¶13

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY SRI.THOMAS J. AMBOOKKEN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AMV

¶18

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶19

Crl.R.P. No.3336 of 2010

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.303 of 2002 on the file of Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur.

¶23

2.The accused was charge sheeted by the S.I of Police, Peechi Police Station alleging offence under Section 354, 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

3.The prosecution case in brief is that the accused humiliated 8 year old daughter of C.W.1, saying that she was an illegitimate child. C.W.1 questioned the accused, and due to that enimity, with the intention of outraging the modesty and also with the intention of voluntarily causing hurt to C.W.1 with dangerous weapon, accused on 20.03.2002 at about 4 p.m. at a

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.3336 of 2010

¶26

¶27

place on Karippakunnu Pipeline road near the house of accused and C.W.1, embraced C.W.1 forcibly and scratched on her face and neck with his head, fisted on the chest and back and also hit on the forehead with a stone causing injury to C.W.1.

¶28

4.The trial court found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and convicted him there under. The accused was convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of 3,000/and in default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months, and he was acquitted under Section 354 of IPC. Accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.38 of 2007 before the 1<sup>st</sup> Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court and the learned Judge modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.3336 of 2010

¶30

¶31

simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 324 of

¶32

IPC. Against the judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Crl.R.P.

¶33

5.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

6.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same arguments advanced before the trial court and appellate court. Both the courts below concurrently found the accused guilty under Section 324 of IPC on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 324 of IPC.

¶35

7.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is a first offender and since the occurrence took place 12 years ago some leniency may be shown in awarding sentence.

¶36

Crl.R.P. No.3336 of 2010

¶37

¶38

8.For the offence under Section 324 of IPC, jail sentence is

¶39

not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of `5,000/- under Section 324 of IPC would meet the ends of justice.

¶40

Accordingly, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in C.C.No.303 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur under Section 324 of IPC is confirmed. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 of IPC. Three weeks time is granted to the revision petitioner to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶41

Sd/M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS,

JUDGE

AMV/19/3/

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Sam @ Samkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sam @ Samkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothish Vs State

M/S. Trans India Construction Vs Suseela Mathew

M/S. Trans India Construction Vs Suseela Mathew

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Sreedharan Vs Kunhirman Nair (Died),, Padmavathy and Others

Sunil Vs State of Kerala